A PHP Error was encountered

Severity: Warning

Message: file_get_contents(https://...@pubfacts.com&api_key=b8daa3ad693db53b1410957c26c9a51b4908&a=1): Failed to open stream: HTTP request failed! HTTP/1.1 429 Too Many Requests

Filename: helpers/my_audit_helper.php

Line Number: 176

Backtrace:

File: /var/www/html/application/helpers/my_audit_helper.php
Line: 176
Function: file_get_contents

File: /var/www/html/application/helpers/my_audit_helper.php
Line: 250
Function: simplexml_load_file_from_url

File: /var/www/html/application/helpers/my_audit_helper.php
Line: 3122
Function: getPubMedXML

File: /var/www/html/application/controllers/Detail.php
Line: 575
Function: pubMedSearch_Global

File: /var/www/html/application/controllers/Detail.php
Line: 489
Function: pubMedGetRelatedKeyword

File: /var/www/html/index.php
Line: 316
Function: require_once

Cytotoxicity evaluation of endosequence root repair material. | LitMetric

Cytotoxicity evaluation of endosequence root repair material.

Oral Surg Oral Med Oral Pathol Oral Radiol Endod

Division of Endodontology, School of Dental Medicine, University of Connecticut Health Center, Farmington, Connecticut, USA.

Published: March 2010

Objective: The purpose of this study was to evaluate the cytotoxicity of EndoSequence Root Repair Material (Brasseler USA, Savannah, GA) and compare it with gray and white MTA.

Study Design: Samples of 2 mg freshly mixed or set gray MTA (GMTA), white MTA (WMTA), EndoSequence Root Repair Material (ERRM), and AH26 were eluted with 300, 600, and 1,000 microL cell culture medium for 24 and 72 hours. L929 cells were seeded into 96-well plates at 3 x 10(4) cells/well and incubated with 100 microL elute from each elute group. Cells cultured only with culture medium served as negative control. AH26 was used as positive control. After 24 hours' incubation, cell cytotoxicity was evaluated by MTT assay. Cell viability was calculated as percentage of the control group. The results were analyzed with 1-way analysis of variance.

Results: For both set and fresh samples, there were no significant cell viability differences among GMTA, WMTA, and ERRM. Cell viability in the AH26 group was less than in all of the other 3 materials.

Conclusion: This study suggests that ERRM may have cell viability similar to GMTA and WMTA in both set and fresh conditions.

Download full-text PDF

Source
http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.tripleo.2009.11.028DOI Listing

Publication Analysis

Top Keywords

cell viability
16
endosequence root
12
root repair
12
repair material
12
culture medium
8
set fresh
8
gmta wmta
8
errm cell
8
cell
6
cytotoxicity evaluation
4

Similar Publications

Want AI Summaries of new PubMed Abstracts delivered to your In-box?

Enter search terms and have AI summaries delivered each week - change queries or unsubscribe any time!